Challenging Charges Orders: Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court held that orders framing charges are not purely interlocutory and can be challenged under Sections 397(2), 482 Cr.P.C., or Article 227 of the Constitution in exceptional cases. The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. remains available but should be exercised sparingly. The High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be barred, but should be used cautiously. The Court directed that stays should not exceed six months unless extended by a speaking order, ensuring that trials proceed expeditiously.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an order framing charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order.
2. Whether the bar on revision under Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act also bars the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Whether an order framing charge can be challenged under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interlocutory Order:
- The Supreme Court addressed whether an order framing charge is an interlocutory order. It was concluded that such an order is not purely interlocutory nor a final order. The Court referred to the principles laid down in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that an order framing charge may not be purely interlocutory and can be interfered with under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution in exceptional situations. The High Court's jurisdiction to consider challenges against an order framing charge is not barred, but such jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in rarest of rare cases to correct a patent error of jurisdiction.

2. Bar on Revision and Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
- The Court examined whether the bar under Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act extends to the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not limited by Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. This power can be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. However, such power should be exercised very sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The judgment in Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, which suggested a blanket ban on stay of trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was overruled.

3. Challenge under Article 226/227:
- The Supreme Court clarified that the High Courts' power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution forms part of the basic structure and cannot be barred. However, this power should be exercised with caution and only in rare and exceptional circumstances. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent of expeditious trial in corruption cases must be respected, and any stay of proceedings should be limited in duration and granted only in exceptional cases with a speaking order.

Additional Observations:
- The Court highlighted the need for speedy trials in corruption cases and the adverse impact of delays on the administration of justice. It directed that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings is operating, the stay will lapse after six months unless extended by a speaking order. The trial courts are to resume proceedings on expiry of the stay unless an extension order is produced.

Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court declared that orders framing charges are not purely interlocutory and can be challenged under Sections 397(2), 482 Cr.P.C., or Article 227 of the Constitution in exceptional cases. The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. remains available but should be exercised sparingly. The High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be barred, but should be used cautiously. The Court directed that stays should not exceed six months unless extended by a speaking order, ensuring that trials proceed expeditiously.

---